<
sebastien.tandel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Evan Huus <
eapache@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Graham Bloice
>> <
graham.bloice@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 26 October 2012 14:44, Evan Huus <
eapache@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Sébastien Tandel
>> >> <
sebastien.tandel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Evan Huus <
eapache@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Sébastien Tandel
>> >> >> <
sebastien.tandel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Guy Harris <
guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:01 PM, Evan Huus <
eapache@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > I have linked a tarball [2] containing the following files:
>> >> >> >> > - wmem_allocator.h - the definition of the allocator interface
>> >> >> >> > - wmem_allocator_glib.* - a simple implementation of the
>> >> >> >> > allocator
>> >> >> >> > interface backed by g_malloc and a singly-linked list.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Presumably an implementation of the allocator could, instead of
>> >> >> >> calling
>> >> >> >> a
>> >> >> >> lower-level memory allocator (malloc(), g_malloc(), etc.) for
>> >> >> >> each
>> >> >> >> allocation call, allocate larger chunks and parcel out memory
>> >> >> >> from
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> larger chunks (as the current emem allocator does), if that ends
>> >> >> >> up
>> >> >> >> saving
>> >> >> >> enough CPU, by making fewer allocate and free calls to the
>> >> >> >> underlying
>> >> >> >> memory
>> >> >> >> allocator, so as to make it worth whatever wasted memory we have
>> >> >> >> at
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> ends
>> >> >> >> of chunks?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > One step further, instead of mempools, I think wireshark could
>> >> >> > have
>> >> >> > great
>> >> >> > interest in implementing slabs (slab allocator). Slabs had
>> >> >> > initially
>> >> >> > been
>> >> >> > designed for kernel with several advantages over traditional
>> >> >> > allocators
>> >> >> > in
>> >> >> > terms of resources needed to allocate (CPU), (external / internal)
>> >> >> > fragmentation and also cache friendliness (most of the traditional
>> >> >> > allocators don't care). I've attached some slides about a
>> >> >> > high-level
>> >> >> > description of slab.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Since then, another paper has been written showing some
>> >> >> > improvements
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > what it took to write a slab for user-space (libumem). There is
>> >> >> > another
>> >> >> > well-known exampel out there, called memcache, that implements its
>> >> >> > own
>> >> >> > version (and could be a good intial point for wireshark
>> >> >> > implementation,
>> >> >> > who
>> >> >> > knows? :))
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If I understand correctly, a slab allocator provides the most
>> >> >> benefit
>> >> >> when you have to alloc/free a large number of the same type of
>> >> >> object,
>> >> >
>> >> > you're right, that's where slab is the most efficient at. Although,
>> >> > the
>> >> > second paper shows it can be efficient for general purpose allocation
>> >> > based
>> >> > on size and not specific structure.
>> >> >
>> >> >> but I don't know if this is necessarily the case in Wireshark. There
>> >> >> are probably places where it would be useful, but I can't think of
>> >> >> any
>> >> >> off the top of my head. TVBs maybe? I know emem is currently used
>> >> >> all
>> >> >> over the place for all sorts of different objects...
>> >> >
>> >> > I guess the most obvious would be emem_tree (emem_tree_node) might be
>> >> > an
>> >> > example used all over and over while dissecting. :)
>> >> > There is indeed a bunch of different objects allocated with emem.
>> >> > Also,
>> >> > it
>> >> > might be used to allocate memory for some fragments.
>> >>
>> >> Ah, yes, the various emem data structures (tree, stack, etc.) would
>> >> likely benefit from slab allocators. Converting them to use slabs
>> >> would be something to do while porting them from emem to wmem.
>> >>
>> >> > Since your interface seems to allow it, we could create several slabs
>> >> > types,
>> >> > one for each specific structures that are allocated very frequently
>> >> > (emem_tree_node?), others for packets/fragments with some tuned slabs
>> >> > sizes
>> >> > and another with some generic sizes.
>> >>
>> >> That seems reasonable, presumably with some shared slab code doing the
>> >> type-agnostic heavy lifting. I'll have to give a bit of thought to
>> >> what the interface for that would be like - if you already have an
>> >> interface in mind, please share :)
>> >>
>> >
>> > Are the slab allocators mentioned "homegrown" or provided by the host
>> > OS. If
>> > the latter, what platforms are they available on?
>>
>> Homegrown on top of malloc/g_malloc/mmap, I believe. A slab allocator
>> is (or was) used internally in the linux and solaris kernels, but has
>> never been exposed to userspace to my knowledge.
>
>
> It's indeed not exposed to users. It's used internally as a "kernel object
> cache allocator".
> But, memcached has a user-space implementation that could -probably- be
> leveraged for wireshark.